Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Gifts versus loans

  • 7 May 2021

    趙 對 石及另一人

    Citation
    [2021] HKFC 80
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC10654/2016

    On the preliminary issues the court found the husband failed to establish any proprietary beneficial interest in the Tai Po property: the husband funded at most HKD4,000,000 towards the purchase (not the HKD6,000,000 alleged) and did not prove a common intention or written declaration to displace legal title; the Hang Seng account was held by the son and, although substantial deposits (approximately HKD2,800,000) were made by the husband, those monies were treated as gifts/parental assistance rather than conferring on the husband a proprietary interest; the alleged HKD500,000 and HKD100,000 w…

  • 20 May 2008

    SDY v. KSLS

    Citation
    SDY v. KSLS
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC11958/2006

    The court found on the evidence that the majority of funds advanced by the wife's father were gifts (with the HK$1,000,000 tranche treated as given to both parties for purchase of the matrimonial home). The TKS property was held to be non-matrimonial but not immune from consideration when achieving a fair outcome. Applying the two-stage approach and s.7 factors (need, sharing, compensation) in light of the short marriage with a child, fairness required the wife retain the TKS property and the former matrimonial home, the husband receive transfer of 31B and the jointly held car park and a lump…

  • 21 Sept 2004

    LIM POR YEN v. HIGHFIT DEVELOPMENT CO LTD AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    LIM POR YEN v. HIGHFIT DEVELOPMENT CO LTD AND ANOTHER
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV19/2004

    The appeal was allowed because the allegation that the 2nd defendant was the plaintiff's third wife or concubine could be relevant to whether the transfers were gifts and to her marital/customary rights; therefore the pleadings should not have been struck out and the defendants must be permitted to amend their defences to include the further particulars and the affirmation sentence, with expert evidence permissible.